Ideology and motivation will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, especially regarding the casualty rate. Groups with secular ideologies and non-religious goals will often attempt highly selective and discriminate acts of violence to achieve a specific political aim. This often requires them to keep casualties at the minimum amount necessary to attain the objective. This is both to avoid a backlash that might severely damage the organization, and also maintain the appearance of a rational group that has legitimate grievances. By limiting their attacks they reduce the risk of undermining external political and economic support. Groups that comprise a "wing" of an insurgency, or are affiliated with aboveground, sometimes legitimate, political organizations often operate under these constraints. The tensions caused by balancing these considerations are often a prime factor in the development of splinter groups and internal factions within these organizations.

In contrast, religiously oriented and millenarian groups typically attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. Because of the apocalyptic frame of reference they use, loss of life is irrelevant, and more casualties are better. Losses among their co-religionists are of little account, because such casualties will reap the benefits of the afterlife. Likewise, non-believers, whether they are the intended target or collateral damage, deserve death, and killing them may be considered a moral duty. The Kenyan bombing against the U.S. Embassy in 1998 inflicted casualties on the local inhabitants in proportion to U.S. personnel of over twenty to one killed, and an even greater disparity in the proportion of wounded (over 5000 Kenyans were wounded by the blast; 95% of total casualties were non-American ). Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict.

Ideology and motivation will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, especially regarding the casualty rate. Groups with secular ideologies and non-religious goals will often attempt highly selective and discriminate acts of violence to achieve a specific political aim. This often requires them to keep casualties at the minimum amount necessary to attain the objective. This is both to avoid a backlash that might severely damage the organization, and also maintain the appearance of a rational group that has legitimate grievances. By limiting their attacks they reduce the risk of undermining external political and economic support. Groups that comprise a "wing" of an insurgency, or are affiliated with aboveground, sometimes legitimate, political organizations often operate under these constraints. The tensions caused by balancing these considerations are often a prime factor in the development of splinter groups and internal factions within these organizations.

In contrast, religiously oriented and millenarian groups typically attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. Because of the apocalyptic frame of reference they use, loss of life is irrelevant, and more casualties are better. Losses among their co-religionists are of little account, because such casualties will reap the benefits of the afterlife. Likewise, non-believers, whether they are the intended target or collateral damage, deserve death, and killing them may be considered a moral duty. The Kenyan bombing against the U.S. Embassy in 1998 inflicted casualties on the local inhabitants in proportion to U.S. personnel of over twenty to one killed, and an even greater disparity in the proportion of wounded (over 5000 Kenyans were wounded by the blast; 95% of total casualties were non-American ). Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict.

Does this show a difference between secularists views and religious views when it comes to life? Are secularists (who are godless sinning nincompoops) more sympathetic when they terrorize?

With all due respect to both of you, I would like to point out that although terrorism has been used for thousands of years as a political tool, it was only given an actual name and description during the 'reign of terror..' the French Revolution.

Which was, by the way, a purely secular uprising. In fact, the vast majority of the leaders in that revolution were atheists, with a few glaring exceptions. Certainly nobody can point to that as a RELIGIOUS war.

Then there are the uprisings in Russia, Hungary...oh, and let us not forget many other such demonstrations that were purely political/secular in nature. Now, I am not in any way proclaiming religions innocent of this sort of thing. What I am pointing out is that terrorism not only is not the sole purview of the religious, but that in point of fact, secularists are very prone to it...and actually formalized the idea and named it.

So back it up, guys, and read some actual history before you make claims and speculations such as the above? Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some actual reality interjected into these conversations?

I do not think the problem is either religious terrorism or secular terrorism; the problem is whenever people abandon reason for unquestionable laws that the perpetrator believe everyone should be forced to obey.

And on the French revolution: that thing was a mess and I find any perspective trying to use it as evidence of their point funny. Every side at one point attempted to murder the others, even amongst the revolutionaries there were sub factions trying to kill each other. Robespierre the deist killed people in the reign of terror; then in the White terror after the fall of Robespierre the reactionaries executed radicals without trial just like Robespierre did.

The moral of the 1789 French revolution: anyone who gets power becomes paranoid and bloodthirsty.

Ideology and motivation will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, especially regarding the casualty rate. Groups with secular ideologies and non-religious goals will often attempt highly selective and discriminate acts of violence to achieve a specific political aim. This often requires them to keep casualties at the minimum amount necessary to attain the objective. This is both to avoid a backlash that might severely damage the organization, and also maintain the appearance of a rational group that has legitimate grievances. By limiting their attacks they reduce the risk of undermining external political and economic support. Groups that comprise a "wing" of an insurgency, or are affiliated with aboveground, sometimes legitimate, political organizations often operate under these constraints. The tensions caused by balancing these considerations are often a prime factor in the development of splinter groups and internal factions within these organizations.

In contrast, religiously oriented and millenarian groups typically attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. Because of the apocalyptic frame of reference they use, loss of life is irrelevant, and more casualties are better. Losses among their co-religionists are of little account, because such casualties will reap the benefits of the afterlife. Likewise, non-believers, whether they are the intended target or collateral damage, deserve death, and killing them may be considered a moral duty. The Kenyan bombing against the U.S. Embassy in 1998 inflicted casualties on the local inhabitants in proportion to U.S. personnel of over twenty to one killed, and an even greater disparity in the proportion of wounded (over 5000 Kenyans were wounded by the blast; 95% of total casualties were non-American ). Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict.

Does this show a difference between secularists views and religious views when it comes to life? Are secularists (who are godless sinning nincompoops) more sympathetic when they terrorize?

With all due respect to both of you, I would like to point out that although terrorism has been used for thousands of years as a political tool, it was only given an actual name and description during the 'reign of terror..' the French Revolution.

Which was, by the way, a purely secular uprising. In fact, the vast majority of the leaders in that revolution were atheists, with a few glaring exceptions. Certainly nobody can point to that as a RELIGIOUS war.

Then there are the uprisings in Russia, Hungary...oh, and let us not forget many other such demonstrations that were purely political/secular in nature. Now, I am not in any way proclaiming religions innocent of this sort of thing. What I am pointing out is that terrorism not only is not the sole purview of the religious, but that in point of fact, secularists are very prone to it...and actually formalized the idea and named it.

So back it up, guys, and read some actual history before you make claims and speculations such as the above? Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some actual reality interjected into these conversations?

You didn't address the OP. You tiptoed around it. The question was, are secularist terrorist more rational in their terrorism than religious terrorists? The article shows that secularist terrorism cares about collateral damage whil the religious terrorist go for the wow factor with no regard to collateral damage.

How are we defining 'religious'? Some communists have unwavering faith in their ideology (as do some free market capitalists), are they equal to the Islamic fascist terrorists in parts of the middle east?

I don't think religious/secular is the correct dichotomy to use. I think rational/irrational would be the better phrasing.

I do not think the problem is either religious terrorism or secular terrorism; the problem is whenever people abandon reason for unquestionable laws that the perpetrator believe everyone should be forced to obey.

And on the French revolution: that thing was a mess and I find any perspective trying to use it as evidence of their point funny. Every side at one point attempted to murder the others, even amongst the revolutionaries there were sub factions trying to kill each other. Robespierre the deist killed people in the reign of terror; then in the White terror after the fall of Robespierre the reactionaries executed radicals without trial just like Robespierre did.

The moral of the 1789 French revolution: anyone who gets power becomes paranoid and bloodthirsty.

Which is why the word and concept 'terrorism' comes directly FROM the French Revolution.

How are we defining 'religious'? Some communists have unwavering faith in their ideology (as do some free market capitalists), are they equal to the Islamic fascist terrorists in parts of the middle east?

I don't think religious/secular is the correct dichotomy to use. I think rational/irrational would be the better phrasing.

Im going off of the article I posted. Any form of terrorism I would consider irrational and unnecessary.

Any form of terrorism with a faith based motivation we will use for this thread.

Ideology and motivation will influence the objectives of terrorist operations, especially regarding the casualty rate. Groups with secular ideologies and non-religious goals will often attempt highly selective and discriminate acts of violence to achieve a specific political aim. This often requires them to keep casualties at the minimum amount necessary to attain the objective. This is both to avoid a backlash that might severely damage the organization, and also maintain the appearance of a rational group that has legitimate grievances. By limiting their attacks they reduce the risk of undermining external political and economic support. Groups that comprise a "wing" of an insurgency, or are affiliated with aboveground, sometimes legitimate, political organizations often operate under these constraints. The tensions caused by balancing these considerations are often a prime factor in the development of splinter groups and internal factions within these organizations.

In contrast, religiously oriented and millenarian groups typically attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible. Because of the apocalyptic frame of reference they use, loss of life is irrelevant, and more casualties are better. Losses among their co-religionists are of little account, because such casualties will reap the benefits of the afterlife. Likewise, non-believers, whether they are the intended target or collateral damage, deserve death, and killing them may be considered a moral duty. The Kenyan bombing against the U.S. Embassy in 1998 inflicted casualties on the local inhabitants in proportion to U.S. personnel of over twenty to one killed, and an even greater disparity in the proportion of wounded (over 5000 Kenyans were wounded by the blast; 95% of total casualties were non-American ). Fear of backlash rarely concerns these groups, as it is often one of their goals to provoke overreaction by their enemies, and hopefully widen the conflict.

Does this show a difference between secularists views and religious views when it comes to life? Are secularists (who are godless sinning nincompoops) more sympathetic when they terrorize?

With all due respect to both of you, I would like to point out that although terrorism has been used for thousands of years as a political tool, it was only given an actual name and description during the 'reign of terror..' the French Revolution.

Which was, by the way, a purely secular uprising. In fact, the vast majority of the leaders in that revolution were atheists, with a few glaring exceptions. Certainly nobody can point to that as a RELIGIOUS war.

Then there are the uprisings in Russia, Hungary...oh, and let us not forget many other such demonstrations that were purely political/secular in nature. Now, I am not in any way proclaiming religions innocent of this sort of thing. What I am pointing out is that terrorism not only is not the sole purview of the religious, but that in point of fact, secularists are very prone to it...and actually formalized the idea and named it.

So back it up, guys, and read some actual history before you make claims and speculations such as the above? Wouldn't it be refreshing to see some actual reality interjected into these conversations?

You didn't address the OP. You tiptoed around it. The question was, are secularist terrorist more rational in their terrorism than religious terrorists? The article shows that secularist terrorism cares about collateral damage whil the religious terrorist go for the wow factor with no regard to collateral damage.

That's your claim, is it? That 'secular' terrorists are more careful about their targets?

Nickman, the entire idea behind terrorism is that the terrorist is NOT careful. Or rather, if 'care' is used in the selection of the target, care is used to cause as much 'collateral damage' as possible. The point of terrorism is to cause terror; to kill as many civilians and cause as much damage as possible. Terrorists who are careful about only going after military targets are not terrorists, by definition.

I do not think the problem is either religious terrorism or secular terrorism; the problem is whenever people abandon reason for unquestionable laws that the perpetrator believe everyone should be forced to obey.

And on the French revolution: that thing was a mess and I find any perspective trying to use it as evidence of their point funny. Every side at one point attempted to murder the others, even amongst the revolutionaries there were sub factions trying to kill each other. Robespierre the deist killed people in the reign of terror; then in the White terror after the fall of Robespierre the reactionaries executed radicals without trial just like Robespierre did.

The moral of the 1789 French revolution: anyone who gets power becomes paranoid and bloodthirsty.

Which is why the word and concept 'terrorism' comes directly FROM the French Revolution.

I was just trying to caution against making the French revolution into a secular/religious violence debate.

How are we defining 'religious'? Some communists have unwavering faith in their ideology (as do some free market capitalists), are they equal to the Islamic fascist terrorists in parts of the middle east?

I don't think religious/secular is the correct dichotomy to use. I think rational/irrational would be the better phrasing.

Im going off of the article I posted. Any form of terrorism I would consider irrational and unnecessary.

Any form of terrorism with a faith based motivation we will use for this thread.

How can you support your claim that 'faith based terrorism' is somehow more terrible than non-faith based terrorism if you don't address both?

BTW, I AM calling you on that claim. Do, please, show us how 'faith based terrorism' is so much worse than terrorism engaged in by, say...atheists.

Terrorism...there are many official definitions of the term, but they all boil down to this: the use of intimidation, violence and the threat of violence for political ends, with the specific target being innocents and civilians. Military action is used to affect the target; cut a supply line, invade a compound, get an army to surrender....but terrorism is the use of a target to intimidate those around it. 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000 people and taking down two buildings. It was about the terror and reaction the US HAD to that event. It was about changing our society...and it worked. We changed. A lot.

Think about the difference between the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, and 9/11. Really think about it. Now think about what happened in the French Revolution, about the acts committed by the 'Young Turks," and others.

Does 'faith based' terrorism strike a chord of fear? Sure it does, and it should...but terrorism is terrorism, and people can be just as dedicated, just as willing to kill or be killed, in the service of a non-religious goal as for a religious one. By making this solely about religion, or implying that religious terrorism is somehow worse than non-religious terrorism, you are MISSING THE POINT OF TERRORISM.

Terrorism is a political tool; it's used by those who figure that it is the best way to get to their goals...and religious or not, secular or not, the people terrorists kill or intimidate are just as dead and just as miserable either way.

.......and the evil among us WILL continue to use it in the service of their goals. The dead at the hands of the secular terrorist isn't going to be any less dead because his killer's opinion of religion is, to you, more 'rational.'